Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941 PETITIONER: SUBI,S/O.LATE K.M.SUBRAMANIAM SUBI NIVAS, PANAYIKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO. 1207, ECIL BUILDGIN,, OPP. SIDHIVINAYAK TEMPLE, VEER SAVARKAR MARG,, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 028. 2 INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD. RARE EARTHS DIVISION,, UDYOGAMANDAL, KERALA. 3 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, ANUSAKTHI BHAVAN, C.S.M MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001. 4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ASST.S.G OF INDIA SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January 2020
The petitioner, son of a deceased employee, who worked under the second respondent has filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the second respondent to exclude the name of the petitioner from the list of candidates under the scheme for compassionate appointment. The petitioner further seeks to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment positively in accordance with the guidelines, in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner states that he is the dependent son of
K.M.Subramaniam, who was a Junior Operator under the service of the second respondent and who passed away on 18.05.2008. The petitioner's father died at the age of 52 years and had a family consisting of wife and two children who were completely depending upon the income of the deceased. The petitioner is the elder son of the deceased and holds ITI Fitter Trade Certificate. Since the family was in distress, the mother of
the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 14.06.2008 seeking to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
3. The petitioner stated that the Board of Directors of
the Company prepared Ext.P2 list in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No.15. In spite of the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in Ext.P2 list, the petitioner is not be appointed. The second respondent issued interview card to other candidates seeking compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation. However, Ext.P3 was of no avail. From Ext.P4 reply dated 12.10.2009 issued by the Central Public Information of the Company, the petitioner came to know that he alone is being discriminated in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
Ext.P4 Office Memorandum prescribes guidelines for compassionate appointment and the respondents have not followed those guidelines. The father of the candidate at Serial No.16 in Ext.P2 expired subsequent to the death of the petitioner's father. However, the claim of the candidate at Serial No.16 is considered overlooking the superior claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the financial condition of the family of the candidate at Serial No.16 is not worse than that of the petitioner's family. There is clear discrimination in the matter.
5. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 contested the writ petition and stated that the policy of compassionate appointment followed by the company is broadly based on Government
guidelines on the subject. On assessment of the petitioner's
case it was found that the petitioner's mother, who is the wife of the deceased K.M.Subramaniam, is an employee of Government of Kerala and is working as Secretary of the Aickaranad Grama Panchayat in Ernakulam District and she had six years of service remaining in the year 2009, at the time of considering the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the fact that the family has a steady monthly income, it was found that the petitioner would not be eligible for compassionate appointment.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.
7. Ext.R2(a) recommendations for compassionate
appointment of dependents of the deceased employees of the second respondent-Company, would show that the Company has considered four applications of the dependents of deceased employees of the Company, including that of the petitioner. In three cases the Company found that the family of the deceased had no other income except pension. Those families had liabilities also. In the case of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner was employed as Secretary of the Aickaranad Grama Panchayath in the pay scale of Rs.9190-200-9590-240-10790- 250-11910-340-13610-380-15510 and she had six years of remaining service.
8. Therefore, it is evident that the family of the
deceased father of the petitioner was not in distress or in penury at the time of the demise of the petitioner's father. Ext.R2(b) would show that the petitioner's mother has been in receipt of total emolument of Rs.14,498/- as monthly salary in the year 2009. Compassionate appointment is intended to assist the members of the family of a deceased employee, who are in distress and in order to save them from impending penury. When the family is found to be having sufficient income, one cannot aspire for compassionate appointment.
9. In the facts and circumstances divulged from the
pleadings, I am of the opinion that petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is not a fit case to be allowed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- N.NAGARESH dlk/15.01.2020 JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 14.06.2006 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE CANDIDATES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED NIL EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 14.09.2009 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 12.10.2009 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 05.05.2003 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 21.01.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THIS REGARD WHICH ALSO ANCLOSES NECESSARY ANNEXURES AND THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.09.2009 FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE EMPLOYMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXHIBIT R2(C): TRUE COPY OF A.I.NO.938 DATED 6.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.